Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
03/09/2021 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HSCR1 | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HSCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2021
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Liz Snyder, Co-Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Co-Chair
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Ken McCarty
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Christopher Kurka
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Disapproving Executive Order No. 119.
- MOVED HSCR 1 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
"An Act extending the January 15, 2021, governor's declaration
of a public health disaster emergency in response to the novel
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic; providing for a
financing plan; making temporary changes to state law in
response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the following areas:
occupational and professional licensing, practice, and billing;
telehealth; fingerprinting requirements for health care
providers; charitable gaming and online ticket sales; access to
federal stabilization funds; wills; unfair or deceptive trade
practices; and meetings of shareholders; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 76(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HSCR 1
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 119
SPONSOR(s): HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/05/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/21 (H) HSS
03/09/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 76
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING COVID 19 DISASTER EMERGENCY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) HSS, FIN
02/19/21 (H) HSS REFERRAL REMOVED
02/19/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
02/26/21 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
03/01/21 (H) HSS REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE FIN
03/01/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
03/02/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM BY TELECONFERENCE
03/02/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
03/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Legislative Counsel
Legal Services
Division of Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HSCR 1, answered
questions relating to HSCR 1 and Executive Order (EO) 119.
HEATHER CARPENTER, Healthcare Policy Advisor
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HSCR 1, answered
questions related to the resolution.
MIKE COONS, President
Mat-Su Chapter of Association of Mature American Citizens Action
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HSCR 1.
KIM KUKLIS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HSCR 1, testified it
is wrong to keep facilities and assistance closed to the public.
FRANCINE REUTER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 76, testified
against continuing the emergency order.
CHANDRA CAFFROY
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
HERMAN MORGAN
Aniak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 76, testified
against continuing the emergency order.
KELSA BRANDENBURG
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 76.
LOUIS IMBRIANI
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 76, testified that
passing the bill would still not fix the problem.
PAMELA FAMISH
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
MIKE COONS, President
Mat-Su Chapter, Association of Mature American Citizens Action
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
KATHRYN MAWERY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
BEATRICE HUCK
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
ELIZABETH HOLMES
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
JONATHAN GALIN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 76.
LEONARD SABICH
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
EDWARD MARTIN
Cooper Landing, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 76, testified in
opposition to giving this power to the governor.
ADAM HYKES
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
MARSHALL SEVERSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 76.
JENNIFER MEYER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 76.
JESSIE CHILSTROM
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
ANNIE MASSEY
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 76.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:06:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TIFFANY ZULKOSKY called the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.
Representatives Fields, Spohnholz, McCarty, Prax, Kurka, Snyder,
and Zulkosky were present at the call to order.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER related that there was a misunderstanding last
week about whether the administration had provided a response to
questions submitted by committee members. She apologized for
the committee's oversight in missing the administration's
response. She offered the committee's appreciation for the
collaboration provided by the senior leadership of the
[Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)] and Suzanne
Cunningham, [Special Assistant to the DHSS Commissioner].
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY offered her appreciation as well to DHSS [for
its collaboration] as the committee has considered Executive
Order (EO) 119 and [HB 76], the proposal to extend the COVID-19
disaster declaration. She said the committee has heard loud and
clear from stakeholders, healthcare leaders, tribes, and
entities representing diverse interests that these are
consequential policy issues of great importance.
HSCR 1-DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER 119
3:08:42 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Disapproving
Executive Order No. 119.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY explained that she and Co-Chair Snyder would
take turns presenting HSCR 1. She handed the gavel to Co-Chair
Snyder so she could provide her portion of the presentation.
3:09:34 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:09:37 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY began her presentation on HSCR 1. She spoke
as follows:
On December 22, 2020, the governor announced that he
advised the Department of Law to draft an executive
order to reorganize the Department of Health and
Social Services into the Department of Health and the
Department of Family and Community Services. Then on
January 20, [2021], Executive Order [EO] 119 was
transmitted to the Senate where it was introduced on
January 25. Per Article III, Section 23, of the
Alaska Constitution, quite simply HSCR 1 disapproves
of the enactment of Executive Order 119. Given the
enormity of the proposed executive order, I would like
to discuss the basis for the proposed disapproval.
Alaska's Department of Health and Social Services
oversees the delivery of crucial programs that offer
essential services and supports to families, elders,
and vulnerable Alaskans across the state from
overseeing health coverage to low-income Alaskans
through Medicaid, to ensuring permanency and wellbeing
of children served by the Office of Children's
Services [OCS], to providing emergent and court
ordered inpatient psychiatric services at the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute, also known as API. And yet the
department is faced with significant challenges,
including high turnover rates and burnout of OCS
workers, having a significant disproportionate
representation of Alaska Native children in the foster
care system, and significant accreditation and safety
issues that have long plagued API, to name a few.
The breadth of important programs, importance of
finding solutions to much-needed programs in crisis,
and magnitude of resources required by the department
is clear. While the department has clearly
demonstrated the need for improvements in the way and
services Alaska provides for our most vulnerable, what
has not been demonstrated is that Executive Order 119
is the vehicle to do so.
3:12:19 PM
Instead, it has become clear through committee
consideration of the executive order that EO 119 is
wrought with program, legal, and fiscal ambiguities
that carry real consequences for Alaskans. In the
administration's initial announcement about this
executive order and the commissioner's subsequent
presentations to this committee, it was stated that
the reorganization will "streamline and improve the
delivery of critical programs and services while
creating more flexibility and responsiveness that
ultimately result in improved outcomes."
But, as we heard in testimony from Casey Family
Programs, the nation's largest operating foundation
focused on safely reducing the need for foster care,
there is no research or evidence of an ideal
organizational structure which exist. Positive
outcomes cannot be attributed to a particular model
and no research provides evidence that reorganization
improves accountability or service quality. However,
what has been well evidenced is that transition to a
new structure can take ... two to five years with at
least one or more years for planning, preparation, and
stakeholder engagement.
I commend the department for its recent and ongoing
efforts to engage tribes, nonprofits, and healthcare
entities on this proposal, and would like to thank the
department for the March 4 follow-up to the committee
in which they provided their schedule for public
engagement. But as we heard resoundingly from
stakeholders in the field, there was no meaningful
engagement in the development of this executive order.
3:13:53 PM
In fact, the schedule for public engagement provided
by the department shows the majority of work with
stakeholders, including townhalls with employees that
will be impacted, occurred after the governor's press
event announcing this action, effectively cutting the
department's tribal healthcare and nonprofit partners
from having a hand in shaping the future of the
department and attributing to the solutions looking to
be realized across it. As Alaska Native Health Board
chairman Andrew Jimmie wrote in a February 26 letter
to the commissioner on this issue, tribes should have
fundamentally been involved in the decision-making
process. I believe this extends to all stakeholders
impacted by Executive Order 119.
With regard to legal ambiguity, in a February 25 memo
from the Department of Law regarding background on EO
119 Chief Assistant Attorney General Stacie Kraly
affirms that an executive order "may not be used to
enact new substantive law before outlining what
statutes the administration believes have been
properly passed by the legislature." This is in stark
contrast to the March 5 memo provided by the
legislature's nonpartisan Legal Services Division
which outlines in detail multiple examples where
Executive Order 119 "impermissibly creates substantive
changes to existing law." While the governor may
reorganize executive departments "he may not delete or
add functions or make other substantive changes." In
just one example, Section 130 of EO 119 repeals the
definition of crisis stabilization center and does not
replace it anywhere else in Alaska statutes. The
opinion goes on to note that this change will have
unintended consequences.
Alaska's constitution charges the legislative branch
with crafting the broad contours of Alaska's policy
and budgetary direction, and the executive branch with
the enactment of the policies and budgets that the
legislature directs. By allowing the executive to
usurp the legislature's constitutionally mandated
powers we would be violating the systems of checks and
balances laid out by the framers of our constitution
as well as potentially putting at risk a number of
programs that are essential to Alaskans across the
state at a time when they rely on them the most.
3:16:19 PM
Finally, the administration has claimed that while
some costs come along with this reorganization,
ultimately, they say, the budget for two departments
would be less than the FY 21 [fiscal year 2021] DHSS
budget. Yet the cost savings referred to in the
presentation on this proposal hinge on the elimination
of positions that exist under the department's current
structure, and instead we know the committed
investments through this proposal are for high-cost
executive positions. So as the legislature continues
our work to diligently comb through agency budgets to
find cost savings and cut programs that serve Alaskans
directly, this proposal would guarantee we are adding
top heavy government salaries in perpetuity. Cutting
frontline positions like public assistance eligibility
specialists and clinicians or psychiatrists at API in
favor of increases to overhead expenses and leadership
positions is neither a fiscal nor policy practice I
can support.
It is also worth considering what we are putting at
risk if the department fails to deliver on the promise
to reorganize seamlessly, which could mean a massive
reorganization of the state's largest department
costing an unforeseen amount of money than what is
ambitiously projected. This means more waste for
administrative time and less resources for enacting
desired solutions for children and families in crisis,
supports for seniors and disable Alaskans, and
ensuring staff and patients at high needs facilities
like API are safe and care for.
Further, we would be losing funding for these programs
during an economic and public health crisis at a time
when Alaskans are relying on essential services more
than ever. The programs overseen by the Department of
Health and Social Services, from Medicaid and
Behavioral Health to the Alaska Pioneers' Home and the
Office of Children's Services, play a vital role in
keeping Alaska communities across the state healthy.
The department has clearly demonstrated a need to
evaluate the way programs are administered, however
they have not been able to meet the policy, legal, and
fiscal thresholds that would allow the legislature to
sign off on this substantial reorganization without
putting Alaskan families and the legislature's
constitutional authority at risk. I would like to
thank the committee for their time and ask that we all
support passing House Special Concurrent Resolution 1.
3:18:50 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease. [Co-Chair Snyder returned
the gavel to Co-Chair Zulkosky.]
3:19:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER began her portion of the presentation on HSCR 1,
disapproving Executive Order (EO) 119. She thanked committee
members for their thoughtful consideration of EO 119. She also
thanked those who provided written and oral testimony as well as
the leadership and employees of DHSS. She offered her gratitude
to DHSS employees for their tireless work through the COVID-19
pandemic, noting that they have provided critical evidence-based
guidance and communications, implemented essential mitigation
measures, ensured access to testing, promoted access to
vaccinations, and connected Alaskans to needed support services.
Co-Chair Snyder said the department's efforts in combination
with tribal partners have resulted to date in the third lowest
death rate in the country, successful efforts at flattening the
infection curve, and one of the highest vaccination rates in the
country. She stated she is grateful for the department's
dedication and expertise as everyone works to ensure these
trends continue and Alaska can begin its road to recovery.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER emphasized that she doesn't want her support for
HSCR 1 to overshadow her gratitude for the department. Rather,
she continued, her support of the resolution reflects the value
placed on the work of the department and her respect for the
people who carry out that work in the service of Alaskans, the
many partner organizations that facilitate connections with the
public, and the public themselves. She added that the pandemic
has truly highlighted the importance of the department's many
moving parts and the services it provides to Alaskans, and that
all Alaskans need DHSS to succeed. Co-Chair Snyder continued
her summary of the motivations for HSCR 1 as follows:
3:21:43 PM
Similarly, the questions we have asked of the
department regarding EO 119 is a reflection of the
seriousness with which we legislators take our duty to
helping ensure our governmental agencies meet the
needs of Alaskans. The questions we have asked have
been direct, intentional, and reasonable. What is the
plan? How have stakeholders been engaged? What will
it cost? What is the evidence supporting this plan?
And what are the metrics for success?
Knowing the department's successes, I think many of us
can agree that the department, for all of its
fantastic services and accomplishments, also has room
for improvement, as we all do. Improvement in
efficiencies. Improvement in timely, thorough, and
compassionate care for Alaskans. And improvement in
access and communication.
I understand that these needs for improvement are what
motivated the creation of EO 119. These proposed
changes would automatically go into effect if the
legislature does not vote to disapprove by March 21,
less than two weeks away. These proposed changes
would also coincide with changes currently outlined in
the FY 22 budget, including the elimination of over
100 department positions affecting the Division of
Public Assistance, Juvenile Justice, and the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute.
While it is clear that changes need to be made to the
operations and possibly to the organization of the
department to improve services and functionality, it
is not clear that bifurcation and the addition of
several new high-level positions is the answer. And
make no mistake, if we get this answer wrong the
victims of the fallout most likely aren't most of us
sitting in this room today. Those negatively impacted
are vulnerable Alaskan children in unsafe homes.
Children and families who don't know where their next
meal is going to come from. A caretaker of an Alaskan
with mental health challenges who has nowhere to turn.
Elders facing increased uncertainty about how they
will live out their golden years. And the father and
his son who is struggling with addiction and finding
treatment. I want to keep these Alaskans in the
forefront of our minds today. We owe it to them to
get this right.
3:24:02 PM
The resolution is not a complete disapproval of
department reorganization. Rather, it's a way to give
us the time needed to make the best decision for
Alaska. While the discussions in this committee have
been a great starting point, they are just that a
starting point. There are still many questions that
have been left unasked and unanswered. We need to
give the public, stakeholders, and the legislature the
time to ask them, and the department and
administration the time to answer them. With the
looming deadline of the EO we have not been afforded
that time.
As Co-Chair Zulkosky said and is highlighted in the
legislative legal memo, there are significant legal
concerns around the EO. There are substantive changes
to existing law, which impedes on the legislature's
authority. There is also mention of significant
litigation risk, which would take away from the
department, the administration, and the legislature's
time and resources. If we are aiming to be efficient,
risking a lawsuit is not the way.
In addition to what [Co-Chair] Zulkosky covered, it's
also worth highlighting that there is a lack of
clarity regarding authorities between the two newly
proposed departments and the creation of new board
positions and resulting imbalance in representation
regardless of whether the new member can vote or not.
The savings or costs of EO 119 are still unclear. The
plan relies on a net loss of 139 full-time positions,
positions that work directly with providing services
for Alaskans. But it adds 13 new executive branch
positions that would cost $1.8 million. The
department is already understaffed. It is difficult
to see how cutting positions even with bifurcation
would increase the quality of services provided to
Alaskans. Additional cost associated with bifurcation
will include, but are not limited to, changes in
signage, IT licensing, and recruitment, but these
costs are unclear.
3:26:06 PM
[Co-Chair] Zulkosky clearly outlined the concerns
regarding the approach taken to stakeholder
engagement. While we commend the submitted plans for
including continued engagement the cart was put before
the horse, so to speak. With EO being crafted and
announced prior to meaningful engagement with
stakeholders to inform it. And as a reminder to those
members of the public who are following along, an EO
cannot be amended. As a result, we've heard
overwhelming pushback or concern from a broad suite of
partners, many of whom are on the stakeholder list
provided by the department.
Please let me be clear, this is a committee that wants
to find responsible effective solutions, and we thank
leadership at the department for initiating this
important and long overdue discussion. I look forward
to continued conversations with the department and the
administration, the public, and other stakeholders to
find ways to improve the Department of Health and
Social Services as well.
Again, while we currently lack the evidence that the
EO is the best path forward for the department, EO 119
started an important conversation, and we need to
continue having it. I welcome continued engagement
with stakeholders, more detailed reports of major
findings or transition plans for review, or even a
task force like the ones we've seen in previous
administrative orders and economic development
initiatives in Alaska.
We look forward to contributing to this effort,
recognizing that HSCR 1 is not a no on reorganization,
but a vehicle for increasing public trust, time,
transparency, and stakeholder engagement for any
significant department changes. I urge a yes vote
from committee members.
3:27:52 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
3:27:56 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY invited committee members to ask questions in
relation to HSCR 1.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the lack of a severability
clause potentially puts the entire EO at risk if any of EO's
individual provisions were challenged by a party with standing.
3:29:04 PM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Legislative Counsel, Legal Services, Division of
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, replied
he would like the opportunity to do more research before he
gives a formal answer. He said his sense is that because this
is an all or nothing proposition in the way that the EO either
gets disapproved by the legislature or becomes effective by law,
and because theoretically speaking there should be no changes to
the law in an executive order, he does think there would be that
kind of risk if the EO goes through.
3:29:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX requested Mr. Dunmire to summarize the legal
challenges/substantive changes he sees with EO 119.
MR. DUNMIRE responded with his belief that there are four boards
which would be impacted by EO 119 by increasing the number of
members serving on each of the boards. He said there are some
changes to substantive law. For example, he stated, Section 2
changes which nurses are allowed to pronounce a patient dead;
the definition of "crisis stabilization center" is deleted and
that would have an impact on Title 12 which is the Code of
Criminal Procedure has a provision that relies on that
definition to give peace officers the authority, he believes, to
arrest people without a warrant. There are several substantive
changes in the EO, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated he is looking for a list of Mr.
Dunmire's concerns so the committee could discuss each one. He
inquired whether crisis [stabilization] center, as mentioned by
Mr. Dunmire, is defined in any of those statutes.
MR. DUNMIRE answered he would have to get back to the committee
with an answer. He said his [legal memo dated 3/5/21] is
available on BASIS and that it details all the substantive
changes to the law that would be enacted by EO 119.
3:33:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the crisis [stabilization]
center itself would go away if there was no definition of it in
statute. He further asked what the effect would be if crisis
[stabilization] center is not defined in statute.
MR. DUNMIRE replied that the fallout would be that an existing
statute that relies upon that definition by directly citing to
it would no longer have a definition. So, it would render a
statute that currently has a definition to be more ambiguous.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated that somebody taking a person to a
crisis [stabilization] center would still know where to take
that person. He said a definition therefore doesn't strike him
as important or significant and that it could be sorted out in
regulation or in the court. He requested Mr. Dunmire to explain
the importance of a definition.
MR. DUNMIRE responded that AS 12.25.031(a) currently allows a
police officer as an alternative to an arrest to deliver someone
to a crisis stabilization center under certain circumstances.
This is a procedure that police officers would use instead of
taking somebody to jail, he explained, but to follow the law,
police officers must know what the law is. Currently that
provision of the statute cites to the definition of crisis
stabilization center that would be repealed under EO 119, which
would cause some ambiguity in those types of situations. But,
he continued, the facilities that are crisis stabilization
centers would still exist.
3:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that his reading of EO 119 is that
the intent is there to find ways to resolve issues to help
people in Alaska. He said EO 119 is not to avoid responsibility
of services, but to find other ways of organization management.
Regarding crisis stabilization, he noted that the Mental Health
Trust and various institutions throughout Alaska have spent much
time and money on "a Crisis Now program, which the whole concept
seems to be in that format there." He said he also knows "words
mean a lot and funding for different programs have to be defined
in the words." This is an all or nothing type of proposal, he
continued, with great things in it, things in question, and
things that still need to be defined. As to EO 119 removing
[crisis stabilization center], he asked Mr. Dunmire whether it
is accurate to say that words mean a lot as far as the state's
ability for being able to collect for services like Crisis Now.
He further asked Mr. Dunmire to respond to the concern that it's
all or nothing.
MR. DUNMIRE answered he doesn't know how the removal of that
definition might impact funding but said Legal Services can
investigate that and provide a thorough legal analysis. As to
whether this would be severable or subject to being repealed in
whole in a lawsuit, he said he certainly thinks that is a risk
that could happen.
3:38:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS followed up on Representative Prax's
question by referring to a letter written by the Anchorage
Police Department Employees Association (APDEA). He specified
that the concern is not so much the physical facility but the
authority. He said the letter states:
I write today my support for HSCR 1 and my disapproval
of EO 119's potential negative impacts. The language
in AS 12.25.031 which allows for police offers to use
their discretion to take a person suffering from an
acute behavioral health crisis to a crisis
stabilization center in lieu of arresting them is
necessary and fully supported by APDEA.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS interpreted this to mean that the police
are telling the committee that it is very risky for a police
officer to do something for which the officer doesn't have clear
statutory authority. He related that in his district behavioral
health issues and public safety are intimately connected and it
is important for the police to have that ability. He said he
doesn't want to endanger what the municipality and others have
done in terms of crisis stabilization. Obviously, the
facilities are going to be there, he continued, but if the
police don't have authority to take folks there then they don't
function.
3:40:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that currently the state
doesn't have any actual crisis stabilization centers. She
related that it's a goal of the administration and the Mental
Health Trust Authority to create crisis stabilization centers
and be able to divert people away from emergency departments,
in-patient psychiatric facilities, and jails so that mental
health can be decriminalized, and people can get the treatment
they need. She said important reform being advanced by this
administration and the Mental Health Trust Authority would be
seriously undermined if creating the new crisis stabilization
centers, envisioned as a part of Crisis Now, is not allowed in
statute when it was passed by the legislature just last year.
3:41:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether anyone is online from the
administration who could address the points brought up in the
Legal Services memo.
3:41:50 PM
HEATHER CARPENTER, Healthcare Policy Advisor, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
replied that the Department of Law (DOL) received the Legal
Services memo on Saturday [3/6/21], is still doing internal
analysis, and has a meeting scheduled with Legal Services for
tomorrow [3/10/21]. She related that DOL has been asked by the
Senate Finance Standing Committee to testify next to DHSS on
these questions on Thursday [3/11/21]. So, she continued, a
speedy turnaround is expected to the questions raised by Legal
Services.
3:43:01 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
3:43:35 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HSCR 1.
3:44:02 PM
MIKE COONS, President, Mat-Su Chapter of Association of Mature
American Citizens (AMAC) Action, related that his organization
has been briefed by Commissioner Crum on the splitting of DHSS.
He said working toward billing the work in a timely and cost-
effective manner is good business practice. Government is not
business, he continued, and that explains the over-the-top costs
to government versus businesses which give out services and do
so with a profit. This split, he asserted, will give all
Alaskans a far better "bang for the buck" that government so far
has not ever given. He stated that his organization supports
the splitting of DHSS in the manner that the governor and
Commissioner Crum have done. He urged the committee to vote no
on HSCR 1.
3:44:55 PM
KIM KUKLIS testified it is wrong to extend this executive order
and keep facilities and assistance closed to the public. She
said she works in healthcare, and it is unreal when watching
people on the streets with doors closed, facilities closed,
support systems closed, and seeing sadness in the eyes of little
ones in the schools knowing what they're going to at home.
"Some of the top healthcare providers that are running this
whole executive COVID thing," she continued, "it's just
disheartening, and it hurts my heart to even be affiliated with
some of the healthcare because it's just become such a power
link." She stated she wants the governor and all the folks who
are giving out information to keep things closed to realize that
they're in their positions because they are supposed to be
serving the needy public that needs advocates. She said she
hopes somebody does the right thing.
3:48:45 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify on HSCR 1.
3:48:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER moved to report HSCR 1 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
3:49:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX objected. He said it seems the discussion
and testimony on Executive Order 119 is either too far down into
the details that cannot be known at this time or concern about
the level of services. He stated he hasn't seen any indication
that the department intends to reduce or eliminate any services
at the service level and the intent is to help the department
run more efficiently. He said it makes sense for a department
this large to have its own director so that that person can pay
attention to fewer things and pay closer attention to the fewer
things. With one commissioner in charge of a very broad range
of services, it's very difficult to focus on any one thing, he
argued. It is his experience, he related, that when large or
small companies are structured with smaller units where people
can focus on a specific thing those units tend to run better.
This is a sound idea in principle, he stated, and he supports
the administration's efforts. Regarding the general public's
concern about the level of service, Representative Prax said he
doesn't think there's any intention to lower those services. He
maintained it would not work to have dozens or hundreds of
stakeholders engaged in the process of trying to determine
something at the end. It must be allowed to play out, he added,
and odds are it will be found that some changes need to be made.
3:52:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX continued speaking to his objection. He
stated the committee should wait until [3/11/21] to hear the
discussion about the specific legal objections. For example, he
explained, his focus on the definition of a crisis center is
because he is pretty sure that the Fairbanks police do deliver
people to places other than jail. Functionally it would be
understood as a crisis center, he asserted, and might be a place
that deals with alcoholism or something else. There might be
lots of facilities that are understood to function as a crisis
center and could be defined in regulation or contract.
Therefore, he argued, crisis center should not be defined in
statute because there are many variations to what it could be.
It is an example of getting too far into the details when the
focus needs to be on the higher level.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX further stated that the purpose of an
executive department is to review its organizations and come up
with how to run the business that the legislature has directed
the executive department to run. He maintained it doesn't work
to have 60 people trying to figure out how to tell the executive
to do something. That's the executive's job and that's what has
been done, he added, and the legislature should support that.
3:54:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asserted that words, details, and
language matter and are literally the work that the legislature
does. On the House floor and in committee, she pointed out,
legislators have had detailed substantial conversations about a
single word because the words that the legislature approves or
disapproves impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Alaska has sobering centers, addiction treatment centers, and
in-patient psychiatric institutions, she continued, but Alaska
does not currently have crisis stabilization centers, which are
needed to divert people away from prisons and emergency
departments.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ specified that the [Legal Services]
memo has identified many flaws and numerous unconstitutional
provisions in the EO. These are not unsubstantial changes, she
stressed, but changing law in a way not permitted by the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. There are very significant
errors. As was said in testimony, she continued, if it's a good
idea now it will still be a good idea in 6-12 months when there
has been a chance to do the work and engage stakeholders.
3:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ outlined the things she believes are
particularly saliant about the EO. She pointed out that
drafting errors in an executive order cannot be corrected by the
legislature, it is an "all or nothing" vote, a yea or nay.
There are substantial changes in the EO that are problematic,
she said, so she will oppose EO [119] and support HSCR 1. One
problem is the changing of board membership from nine to ten
members, she opined, which is a significant expansion of power
on the administration's part. Not only is an odd number
important for resolving issues, she said, but it would add
additional administrative members. She recalled [Commissioner
Crum] stating that it shouldn't matter because the legislature
confirms members of those boards. She allowed that that's true
but noted that every one of those boards was crafted in law in a
very carefully negotiated compromise. So, she argued, the EO to
expand those boards and have additional administrative positions
on them is a massive expansion of power, and the EO would change
multiple boards in that way. Representative Spohnholz noted the
committee has already discussed the elimination of the crisis
stabilization centers which are important to the reforms being
looked at. She said the EO also eliminates the Criminal Justice
Commission and creates the Criminal Justice Information Advisory
Commission. While this was recommended by legislative auditors,
she maintained that it needs to be done in statute because it is
a very significant change that needs to be discussed in detail.
Representative Spohnholz further pointed out that the EO
dramatically expands the administration's authority to issue
regulations and that the administration has said not to worry
because there's an extensive public review process for approving
new regulations. However, she continued, this administration
has advanced numerous emergency regulatory packages, including
rate cuts and new regulations for implementation of the
[Medicaid] 1115 Waiver, and didn't respond to the public input
on those, creating much heartache and headache for the people
providing those services and who didn't have a chance to get
their input delivered. It's a disingenuous statement to say
[DHSS] has a robust public process, she charged.
3:59:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ added that she is not opposed to
reorganizing DHSS and agrees with the commissioner's position
that additional leadership is needed to manage some of the
complicated challenges had by the department, given it is
roughly a $3.4 billion organization. But how that is done
really matters, she said. Last year the administration proposed
adding a couple executive positions, she stated, but this year a
massive expansion of 13 new senior executives is proposed.
There are many problems with this, she asserted, and it's such a
massive expansion of power on the administration's part that it
would be irresponsible to approve it. She stated that voting
for HSCR 1, declining EO 119, is the only responsible thing to
do for the people of Alaska and to avoid the risk of certain
lawsuits that would happen if this executive order were allowed
to go through.
4:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS thanked the stakeholders who weighed in.
He said he is particularly concerned about the ability of police
to deal with people in mental health crisis, about impacts on
foster care articulated by Facing Foster Care, and about impacts
on OCS and vulnerable children as heard from tribal leaders. He
acknowledged DHSS has many hard working and inspiring staff who
have done incredible work in the last year. He said he hopes it
is ensured that any proposed reorganization has sufficient time
to be executed smoothly and in coordination with stakeholders.
4:01:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA explained he is conflicted because of the
big concerns about legislative authority brought up by Mr.
Dunmire. There has been a lot of long-term erosion of things
that are clearly the legislature's responsibility in the
constitution, he opined. He said he would like to hear the
Department of Law answers before deciding whether to support
the current version of EO 119 and, until he hears those answers,
he cannot support HSCR 1.
4:02:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered his understanding that only the
executor can amend the executive order and legislators have many
questions but cannot make any changes to the EO. However, he
opined, in just a few days people will be presenting to the
questions and it would be appropriate to postpone this vote to
give fair audience to those people and the questions. He stated
he is concerned about several things in the EO and sees the
expeditious need to serve the people of Alaska. He said many
interesting things have happened with COVID-19 and reassessing
management of operations of different things. He suggested the
vote be postponed until after the answers are heard.
4:03:27 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:06:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER said she appreciates the desire to wait to vote
until hearing from the Department of Law regarding the Legal
Services memo. However, she stated, the committee is in a
predicament with the timing and looming deadline of 3/21/21. If
HSCR 1 isn't passed out of committee today, she continued, being
able to vote on this in joint session would be in serious
jeopardy given the remaining steps that must be taken.
Something might be heard from the Department of Law this week
that puts Representative McCarty in opposition to EO 119, she
said, but there wouldn't be the chance to consider it together
in joint session. It isn't just issues with the Legal Services
memo, she opined, but also the issues around stakeholder
engagement, details of the plan, and unknown and unclarified
costs that are enough for her to want to be able to bring this
to a vote in joint session.
4:08:09 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked whether Representative Prax maintained
his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX appreciated folks wanting to be cautious,
and that members' only options are do nothing or say no, and
that the deadline is 3/21/21. He suggested there would be
enough time for committee members to listen to the discussion in
the Senate hearing [on 3/11/21] and then the committee could
meet that afternoon or the following day [3/12/21] to pass or
not pass [HSCR 1].
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY noted the concerns are about constitutional
authority, fiscal ambiguity, and program ambiguity. She said
the House has an opportunity to consider HSCR 1, the Senate will
be considering a special concurrent resolution, and then the
bodies meet in joint session, so there is nothing that goes to
the floor. She specified that the 3/21/21 deadline is a
deadline that is set in constitution and is what puts the
legislature against a timeclock that otherwise wouldn't be
there. She reiterated that if this is a good idea now, it will
continue to be a good idea six months from now. She offered her
belief that the committee intent is to make a consideration on
HSCR 1. She surmised Representative Prax maintained his
objection to moving the resolution from committee today.
4:10:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX maintained his objection. He stated he
would like to ask the administration what the consequences might
be of the legislature declining [the EO] and whether it could be
brought back the next day and the process started over again or
a significant setback if this turns out to be a good idea.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY outlined the timeline under which the
administration proposed EO 119: EO announced by the governor on
December 22, [2020], work done with the Department of Law for
about a month, EO read across the Senate floor on January 25,
[2021]. It is now the beginning of March and there has been
ample opportunity for engagement on this issue, she said. She
stated she would not entertain prolonged discussion as the
committee has had opportunity for dialogue today. She stated
that consideration and clarity will be forthcoming in the Senate
and recommended that this body tune into that and follow along
in the process.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER pointed out that the committee is required to
give adequate notice if it holds additional meetings, which adds
additional days when calculating backward from the deadline.
4:13:03 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:16:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA stated that considering the schedule he
would like the opportunity to vote on the floor on HSCR 1 but
has not yet decided whether he supports the executive order. If
the resolution is not passed out of committee, he continued,
then members will not have the opportunity to stop the executive
order if that is what they want to do, and therefore he will
support the resolution.
4:16:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Spohnholz, Fields,
McCarty, Kurka, Zulkosky, and Snyder voted in favor of reporting
HSCR 1 from committee. Representative Prax voted against it.
Therefore, HSCR 1 was reported from the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
4:17:41 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:17 p.m. to 4:22 p.m. to
sign the committee reports.
HB 76-EXTENDING COVID 19 DISASTER EMERGENCY
4:22:03 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 76, "An Act extending the January 15,
2021, governor's declaration of a public health disaster
emergency in response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-
19) pandemic; providing for a financing plan; making temporary
changes to state law in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the
following areas: occupational and professional licensing,
practice, and billing; telehealth; fingerprinting requirements
for health care providers; charitable gaming and online ticket
sales; access to federal stabilization funds; wills; unfair or
deceptive trade practices; and meetings of shareholders; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 76, Version 32-
GH1011\B, Dunmire, 3/3/21, ("Version B"), adopted as a work
draft on 3/4/21.]
4:22:55 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY specified that 18 amendments to Version B are
proposed for the committee's consideration today.
4:23:14 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:23 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.
4:26:11 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY offered her appreciation for the committee
working its way through these big policy considerations.
4:26:21 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:26 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.
4:27:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated he would not offer Amendment 1.
4:27:40 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked whether Representative McCarty [would
not be offering] Amendments 2 through 16.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY confirmed he [would not be offering]
Amendments 2 through 16.
4:27:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA moved to adopt Amendment 17, [labeled 32-
GH1011\B.2, Dunmire, 3/5/21], which read:
Page 1, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "relating to personal objections to the
administration of COVID-19 vaccines;"
Insert "relating to the right to refuse
administration of COVID-19 vaccines;"
Page 10, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "PERSONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATION
OF COVID-19 VACCINES."
Insert "RIGHT TO REFUSE ADMINISTRATION OF COVID-
19 VACCINES. (a)"
Page 10, following line 15:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) Notwithstanding AS 14.07.020(a)(7) and
AS 14.30.125, a school may not require a child
attending the school to be immunized against COVID-19.
(c) A common carrier may not require a
passenger, as a condition of transport, to be
vaccinated against COVID-19. In this subsection,
"common carrier" has the meaning given in
AS 04.16.125(c).
(d) An employer may not require an employee, as
a condition of employment, to be vaccinated against
COVID-19. In this subsection, "employee" and
"employer" have the meanings given in AS 18.60.105(a).
(e) A business, state agency, or political
subdivision of the state may not require an individual
to be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the individual
to access an area or service that is open to the
public. In this subsection, "business" has the meaning
given in AS 18.35.399.
(f) A state agency or political subdivision of
the state may not adopt or issue a regulation,
ordinance, order, or similar policy that requires an
individual to be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the
individual to exercise a right or receive a benefit
that is available to the public."
4:27:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ objected.
4:27:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA explained Amendment 17 makes it clear that
Alaskans have the right to choose whether to receive the COVID-
19 vaccines. He stated that the vaccines have not gone through
the regular approval process at the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and have been rushed. In a time of extraordinary fear
around COVID, he opined, it is important to make it clear that
health care choice is a freedom and people can choose which
immunizations they do or don't want to take.
4:28:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that nobody
is being forced to take a vaccine and that vaccines are totally
optional right now with the exception that potentially some
employers might require them, particularly in the health care
arena which she would consider to be a personal responsibility.
She further offered her understanding that the approval of the
COVID-19 vaccines did go through the traditional FDA process and
what happened was that the research and development process was
accelerated because everybody in health care science dropped
everything else and collaborated. She maintained her objection
to Amendment 17.
4:30:16 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY stated that Section 11 includes protections
that an individual may object to the administration of a COVID-
19 vaccine and that there is no requirement that anybody provide
justification for declination. There is no force of law that is
requiring the COVID-19 vaccine, she continued, so Amendment 17
seems redundant. She asked Representative Kurka whether she is
misinterpreting that.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA replied that Amendment 17 leaves most of
the language in place but makes the language stronger and very
clear that Alaskans have the right to choose whether to receive
the vaccine. For example, he explained, on page 1, lines 8-9,
"personal objections" would be deleted and replaced with "the
right to refuse administration of COVID-19 vaccines because he
believes it is a right to choose whether to receive the vaccine
and is not just about personal objection.
4:32:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX agreed with Amendment 17's sentiment that no
one should be required to accept a vaccine but maintained that
[citizens] have the constitutional right to not be forced to do
that in the first place. He concurred it is in Section 11, but
said he is uncomfortable about precedents that get set. He
stated he doesn't want people to get the idea that their right
to something comes from the government, the government should
just be recognizing rights, which is being done at this point.
He said it is for that reason that the committee should vote
against Amendment 17.
4:33:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:33 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.
4:40:48 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY reminded members that Representative Spohnholz
had previously maintained her objection.
4:40:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA spoke further to Amendment 17. He said
Section 11 of Version B "lists personal objections and lists who
may not be required, but it doesn't clarify who they might not
be required by,and it could be interpreted that it may not be
required by the state. He specified that the proposed new
subsections in Amendment 17 - (b), (c), (d), and (e) - clarify
employers may not require this as a condition of employment. He
added that he isn't concerned about this administration which
has made it clear that it is not going to require vaccination,
only encourage it strongly; his concern is that other actors
outside the administration will, and he wants to ensure that the
right to decline a vaccine is upheld.
4:42:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ maintained her objection.
4:42:18 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kurka and McCarty
voted in favor of adopting Amendment 17. Representatives
Spohnholz, Fields, Prax, Zulkosky, and Snyder voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 17 failed by a vote of 2-5.
4:43:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA moved to adopt Amendment 18, [labeled 32-
GH1011\B.1, Dunmire, 3/4/21], which read:
Page 1, line 7, following "shareholders;":
Insert "relating to the powers of the governor
during a disaster emergency; relating to the powers of
municipalities;"
Page 10, following line 21:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 13. AS 26.23.020(b) is amended to read:
(b) Except as provided in (l) of this section,
the [THE] governor may issue orders, proclamations,
and regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of
this chapter, and amend or rescind them. These orders,
proclamations, and regulations have the force of law.
* Sec. 14. AS 26.23.020 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(l) The governor may not issue an order,
proclamation, or regulation that
(1) requires an individual to stay at home
or shelter in place;
(2) prohibits or restricts the operations
of a business or a place of worship; or
(3) declares a person or a business as
essential or nonessential based on the trade or
occupation of the person or business.
(m) In this section, "business" has the meaning
given in AS 18.35.399.
* Sec. 15. AS 26.23.140 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) Notwithstanding a local disaster emergency
declared under (a) of this section, a municipality may
not issue an order, proclamation, or regulation that
(1) requires an individual to stay at home
or shelter in place;
(2) prohibits or restricts the operations
of a business or a place of worship; or
(3) declares a person or a business as
essential or nonessential based on the trade or
occupation of the person or business.
(e) In this section, "business" has the meaning
given in AS 18.35.399."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 7:
Delete "this Act is"
Insert "secs. 1 - 12 and 16 - 18 of this Act are"
4:43:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS objected.
4:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA explained that Amendment 18 addresses the
issue of government shutdowns and what he calls a clear
violation of the Constitution of the State of Alaska ("Alaska
Constitution") in terms of religious liberty. He read from
Article I, Section 1, of the Alaska Constitution which states
that the constitution "is dedicated to the principles that all
persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of
happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own
industry". Over the last year, he opined, that was violated in
a way never seen by this country and he wants to make it clear
that it's not going to happen again with an executive order. He
said he has many concerns about [HB 76] and any extension of the
governor's executive orders.
4:44:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS spoke to his objection. He related that
the businesses in his district have been affected by capacity
limits and other emergency orders, which are local government
decisions, not state decisions. He stated that HB 76 does not
impose such limitations, nor impose new limits on municipal
power, and he is concerned about the bill being used to impose
new limits on municipal power and he isn't a fan of unfunded
mandates. This bill, he added, is focused on efficient vaccine
distribution, and maintaining testing at airports for incoming
travelers, which businesses in his district tell him is
important. He said he wants Anchorage to be able to continue
pulling back on capacity limits and letting businesses function
at full capacity which is much more likely to continue if there
is testing and efficient vaccine distribution to help keep
variants out of Alaska. While he understands the sentiments of
Amendment 18, he continued, it isn't what the underlying bill
deals with, and he doesn't want to go down the road of
relitigating state and municipal power as it relates to public
health emergencies. He said he will maintain his objection.
4:46:46 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax and Kurka
voted in favor of adopting Amendment 18. Representatives
Spohnholz, Fields, McCarty, Zulkosky, and Snyder voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 18 failed by a vote of 2-5.
4:46:56 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:47:42 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HB 76, Version B.
4:48:01 PM
FRANCINE REUTER stated she is not in favor of continuing the
emergency order.
4:48:25 PM
CHANDRA CAFFROY recalled that on 2/14/[21] the governor stated
in a press release that he reserved the right to declare another
emergency if the data showed a need. She said the data shows a
decline in COVID-19 cases and deaths despite expiration of the
emergency order and that according to the governor there is no
need for another extension or declaration of emergency. She
said she represents 125 people meeting across Alaska and about
2,000 people in a Facebook group called Alaskans for
Constitutional Rights that oppose the governor's
unconstitutional mandates. She stated that in testimony before
a Senate committee in early February [2021], Commissioner Crum
admitted that none of the items in HB 76 require another
emergency order. She asserted that every item can be addressed
in separate legislation that does not give the governor
unnecessary powers to again trample constitutional rights and
circumvent the voice of the people through their elected
legislators. She stated that the same or higher value of
importance should be given to the will of the people as opposed
to the will of businesses and organizations that profit from the
continuation of emergency orders and spreading fear. She said
the testimony of doctors should not be given unfair weight
against the people and the people's inherent rights because
Alaskans can assess risk and make their own decisions. She
urged for other avenues to be pursued and asked that members
vote no on HB 76.
4:51:02 PM
HERMAN MORGAN urged committee members to vote no on the
governor's [proposed] extension. He stated that on 1/20/[21]
the World Health Organization reported that there were many
false positives, so a lot of people said to have COVID-19 didn't
have it. He asserted that a lot of deaths claimed to be from
COVID-19 were not. He related that he testified before the
Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee a week and
a half ago where he urged a no vote on the emergency extensions.
He maintained that the infection numbers are inflated and that
medicines like Ivermectin cure COVID. He further maintained
that there is no concern for a hospital bed shortage, which is
the argument for emergency orders and lockdowns. He alleged
that this is all about receiving federal disaster money and said
it shouldn't be that way. He charged that extending the
emergency order is an acceptance of $530 million from the
federal government and that most of it goes to the teachers
union lobbyists while Alaska has the lowest scores in the
nation.
4:53:17 PM
KELSA BRANDENBURG testified in support of HB 76. She said she
loves that Alaska is leading the way for vaccination
distribution. She related that since January [2021] Dillingham
has had two mass vaccination events, vaccinating over 700
people, as well as ongoing vaccination appointments and home
visits. Dillingham schools were closed for about two weeks due
to potential exposure in February. Progress is being made but
nothing has really changed, she opined, in that there is still a
worldwide pandemic with people dying and getting sick every day
everywhere. This past summer Dillingham managed the spread of
COVID-19 with some strict ordinances, she stated. The fish
processing plant kept to itself, fishermen went directly to
their vessels, tourists went directly to their destinations, a
10-day quarantine is required upon arrival, and travel
notification forms and masks are required in businesses and
public places. To date Dillingham has had 76 positive cases
with zero deaths. She offered her belief that without the
governor's original declaration, the health mandates, and the
advisories, Dillingham and Alaska's positive COVID-19 cases
and mortality rates would be much higher. She said the
governor's declaration helped Dillingham and other communities
with guidance and assistance to protect themselves from the
pandemic; without it, communities would have been scrambling to
figure it out on their own. The pandemic cannot be controlled
but it can be managed, she continued, and with tourists and
fishing season right around the corner, now isn't the time to
relax. She urged diligence in continuing to slow the spread of
COVID-19 by extending the declaration through passage of HB 76.
4:55:31 PM
LOUIS IMBRIANI testified that whether HB 76 is passed or not, it
is still a Band-Aid that doesn't fix the problem. He said the
people who provided invited testimony identified some serious
issues with the state just on a regular basis. He asserted that
even if the emergency order goes away the people who need the
most help will still not have been helped people struggling
with drug and alcohol abuse, people who are hungry or homeless.
The red tape that government has put up in different sectors has
caused severe inequity to people around Alaska, he continued.
He stated he doesn't know what the final solution to the problem
is, but that allowing one person to make sweeping declarations
[doesn't help] places that might need more support, such as
Petersburg, or places like Anchorage that are being held down by
unconstitutional orders. He maintained that certain supports
are needed and have not been received.
4:57:06 PM
PAMELA FAMISH testified she was sad that Representative Kurka's
amendments failed because she feels he is proactive in
protecting Alaskans. She urged committee members to not support
HB 76 because everyone is "COVIDed out." She related that
business owners in Fairbanks have suffered so much, even without
lockdowns, and that there has been a mental health toll on the
people in her community. She said the federal money [that is
received] comes with rules that continue the lockdowns, masking,
and what she calls oppression. This perpetuates the problems,
she maintained, because the longer the lockdowns the less money
is made and then more money is needed from the federal
government, which continues the cycle. She urged a no vote on
HB 76 to set Alaskans free.
4:59:07 PM
MIKE COONS, President, Mat-Su Chapter, Association of Mature
American Citizens (AMAC) Action, testified that the Mat-Su
Chapter supported the emergency order originally, but the
emergency order has expired, and the governor has still gotten
the job done. He said seniors have still received vaccines and
the therapeutics of care needed are still being delivered. He
stated that the Senate is working on getting the non-COVID
issues within [Executive Order 119] done via legislation, which
his organization supports. He said the governor is showing
those cities that still have their economies closed by mandating
masks and lockdowns in the guise of an emergency are not needed.
Government must get out of the way, he asserted, this governor
did a good job during this pandemic and Alaska is far ahead of
other states and is in a recovery phase. He asked that members
not step in front of that recovery and said his organization
opposes HB 76 because it is no longer needed.
5:00:21 PM
KATHRYN MAWERY urged a no vote on HB 76 which would extend the
emergency order. (Indisc. -- poor phone reception.) She said
it is restraining and a power play and that it is time to let
people get back to work and provide for their families. She
questioned why HB 76 is being discussed and said the state
should be opened.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY encouraged Ms. Mawery to submit written
testimony due to technical difficulties with phone reception.
5:02:51 PM
BEATRICE HUCK urged that HB 76 not be approved. She said she
works for a local emergency department and that she has noticed
a decline in patient [numbers] since before the start of COVID-
19 and last year's emergency declaration. She opined that if
Alaska were in a real emergency state there would be a
significant number of patients and her place of work would be
overrun, which has not been the case. Since the emergency order
ended a month ago the number of patients hasnt gone up. She
further related that her teenage son has been at home for the
past year unable to socialize in person with other kids and all
his learning has been done online. She said her son's health
has been negatively affected and he has depression issues and
continuing the lockdowns and mandates will not be helpful. She
shared that she has friends who have lost their livelihoods
because of the lockdowns. Summer is coming and tourism is
needed to help the state with revenue, she added, and having a
lockdown until the end of summer would cause more harm than
good. She urged there not be an extension of the emergency
order and that there be some other resolution.
5:05:25 PM
ELIZABETH HOLMES asked that the committee vote no on extending
the COVID-19 mandate. She pointed to South Dakota and Texas
which have no mandates and said those states are doing well.
She said Alaska needs tourism to be opened and urged the
committee to vote no.
5:06:05 PM
JONATHAN GALIN testified that HB 76 and extending the COVID-19
disaster declaration is important legislation that needs to be
passed now. He maintained that not passing the bill would be
foolhardy and irresponsible and would ignore public
endangerment. The bill should not and is not about partisan
politics, he opined, it is about Alaska's safety. Without an
updated public health disaster emergency declaration, he stated,
Alaska's healthcare system will not be able to access critical
operational flexibilities that have aided in testing, treating,
and vaccinating for COVID. He further stated that the lack of
emergency declaration further limits cancer patients to tele-
health services and lifesaving treatment and that some adverse
effects of the declaration's expiration include closure of
drive-through COVID-19 testing sites and travelers are no longer
required to present a negative COVID-19 test or undergo
mandatory testing upon arrival at Alaska's airports. He said
the recent mandatory airport testing was made possible by
funding through the declaration that has expired. This is a
life and death issue, he continued, and the reason Alaska has
had tremendous success is because of the past declaration,
specifically for mandatory testing. He maintained that if the
virus spikes again Alaska's fiscal issues cannot be rectified,
nor businesses reopened in a meaningful way.
5:08:32 PM
LEONARD SABICH testified he opposes HB 76. He said he has
watched the past declaration kill things around Alaska. He
stated that tourism for this summer is in limbo in Homer, people
are depressed including in his own family, and businesses are
being killed including his business. He urged that the state be
opened and returned to work. He maintained that nothing
warrants this oppression against constitutional rights and
advocated for the committee vote no on the bill.
5:09:58 PM
EDWARD MARTIN testified that he just returned from Hawaii after
more than a year and that this is because he wouldn't sign a
travel document that would further take away his liberties under
criminal and civil penalties. He charged that something is
seriously wrong to think about extending these powers to a
governor who has already abused his authority three times;
rather, the legislature should impeach the governor and the
commissioner for bringing this scourge on the liberties of
Alaskans. He said he doesn't need an education from anyone on
how to stay six feet away from someone else or whether to wear a
mask, and that vaccines are the same and legislators cannot
force people to do anything. The rights of Alaskans are being
deprived under the color of law, he opined, and it is foolish to
give the governor this power.
5:12:00 PM
ADAM HYKES testified in opposition to HB 76. He opined that the
reasons and findings on pages 2-3 of the bill are the reasons
that he would use to no longer have the emergency declaration
and to oppose HB 76. He asserted that the provisions on page 8,
line 17, meetings of shareholders, and page 9, line 9,
Department of Revenue, are no longer necessary when people can
maintain social distance, properly mask, be vaccinated, or
receive preventative treatment as ways to beat COVID. This bill
is obsolete, he said. Corporations have had a year to get their
act together and make this happen themselves; it doesn't need to
be legislated. He maintained that there is no piece of the bill
that cannot be legislated on its own without a disaster
declaration, and therefore it is unnecessary. He further stated
that citizens cannot be forced to take an experimental
vaccination.
5:14:09 PM
MARSHALL SEVERSON related that he has read about the 1918 [flu]
disaster in history books, which impacted Alaska and the Native
community. He noted that andemic means worldwide and for
this reason he believes reopening Alaska without an emergency
declaration will probably lead the state into another wave of
COVID-19 infections with a bad effect on communities. He stated
Alaska's Native villages have it right with the mandates they
have in effect, and they need the cover of a state emergency
declaration. He said he doesn't take his information or
recommendations from Texas or South Dakota; Alaska led the way
with an emergency declaration. The declaration needs to be
extended, so he supports HB 76, he continued. He added that it
will be better for Alaska to have the testing and the mandatory
quarantines of people coming into the state who are identified
as having COVID.
5:15:56 PM
JENNIFER MEYER testified that she supports HB 76. She stated
that the pandemic itself is causing harm, not the public health
restrictions that have kept people alive and the spread of
COVID-19 low. If the virus can be controlled, she said, then
more normal social and economic conditions can be brought back.
She encouraged the committee to support HB 76 because in public
health response the ability to move quickly is critical to
contain a virus, and the emergency declaration allows that to be
done. Without a declaration in place, she continued, it takes a
tremendous amount of time and energy to go through the
regulatory process and the delicate window is often missed. She
said that while the numbers in Alaska overall may be going down,
the reproductive rate is increasing in several regions of the
state. Until 80 percent or more of the population is
vaccinated, the state isn't out of the woods, she added.
5:17:54 PM
JESSIE CHILSTROM testified in opposition to HB 76. She asked
that the emergency declaration not be extended and stated that
it is too much government, too much strain on the budget, too
much strain on the taxpayers, too much strain on the businesses,
and too much stress for the students. She said COVID-19 numbers
have gone down, and medical technology has improved, so HB 76 is
not needed. She added that she supports the amendments proposed
by Representative Kurka because medical freedom is paramount.
5:18:40 PM
ANNIE MASSEY first noted she is the parent of three children,
two in the Anchorage School District. She stated she opposes HB
76 and asserted there is no emergency disaster. The true
disaster for Anchorage, she continued, has been the denial of
in-person education for a year, the loss of Anchorage's economy,
businesses closing and residents losing jobs, and the mental
health crisis for [Alaska's] youngest. She asked that
[Alaska's] government empower citizens to pursue life, liberty,
and happiness, and to protect the freedoms of Alaskans to grow,
build, work, and play. She maintained that extending the
disaster order ignores that individual responsibility is
essential in [Alaska's] democratic republic. Lockdowns and
masking are unconstitutional and put Alaskans at risk to
domestic and foreign enemies in every way possible, she opined,
and Alaskans are more at risk to a tyrannical power in
government than a virus. They act as a trojan horse for
deliberate corruption, she charged, and Alaska's leaders need to
acknowledge that and protect Alaskans' freedom.
5:20:25 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY invited committee discussion of the proposed
CS for HB 76, Version B.
5:20:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that summer is approaching and
keeping the decline in cases is needed to save Alaska's economy
and to reopen schools. He said his district has been hit harder
than others because of its reliance on tourism and another
COVID-19 surge will put even more businesses out of business.
Businesses that have been open for generations are struggling to
survive, he continued, businesses must be saved, and the virus
must be defeated. He stated that dangerous virus variants are
out there and cannot be stopped without testing at the airports.
He further stated that the virus cannot be defeated without
efficient distribution of vaccines. He urged that the good work
to date be kept up and the needed levels be reached for
defeating the virus. He said HB 76 is about defeating COVID-19
and helping businesses survive, it has nothing to do with
lockdowns, and to open the state the virus must be defeated.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS related that the message he has heard over
the past month and a half from restaurant owners, oil field
service companies, and local tourism companies in his district
is to extend the disaster declaration. He said these businesses
have told him that when working on the North Slope the variants
need to be stopped at the airport, that cases need to be kept
low for tourism companies so people can travel to Alaska and
spend money, and that cases need to go lower so people can
return to restaurants and dine inside again. He offered his
appreciation to the businesses in his district for reaching out
and said he will strongly support extending the declaration. He
further related that local religious organizations that
distribute food to hard hit families have told him they are
seeing a doubling or tripling of families that are going hungry.
He pointed out that with this bill millions of dollars from the
federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are
available to Alaska, which reduces the tax burden on Alaskans.
He added that hungry kids cannot do well in school and
reiterated his support for HB 76.
5:22:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that COVID-19 is real. He shared
that when he flew back to Alaska from Cambodia on Thanksgiving
Day 2019 the airport in Shanghai was nearly empty while the Los
Angeles and Anchorage airports were very busy. What was
happening, he said, was that COVID-19 was already hitting China
at that time and until March [2020], when it was revealed to be
in the U.S., people here had already gotten COVID-19 but didn't
know what it was other than they were very sick. The effects of
this disease have been like that of the Spanish Flu in 1918, he
continued, and over time the world has found different ways to
deal with this virus and is improving in doing so.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said the question is whether Alaska is
still in the situation of a crisis are the numbers going down?
He related that he is a skeptic and therefore looks at the data
to see what is going on, and currently the data shows numbers
dropping way below being in a disaster. He asked what the
problem is if the virus is being contained, there are vaccines,
and there are methods of dealing with the virus. He said the
impact of this on state, the state's economy, and the ability
for people to function needs to be looked at and that it is time
to release Alaska back to operating. Alaskans are more aware of
hygiene than ever before, he added, so sanitizers will continue
being used. This is the time for Alaska to move forward, he
opined, and not be stuck in fear of false evidence appearing
real. The data shows numbers going down. The question to ask
when numbers are rising, he continued, is whether the numbers
are in the severe situation that was seen in March [2020] where
people's lives were threatened or whether people have COVID-19
with an influenza type condition, which is what is currently
being heard from physicians. People are coming into the
hospital but are sent home the same day, whereas in March 2020
they were being kept in the hospital. He stated he will vote no
on HB 76 in order to move forward for Alaska.
5:28:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER appreciated that everyone is tired of COVID.
She acknowledged that everyone is exhausted, as heard in today's
testimony, but said she doesn't want to pump the brakes right
before being crossing the finish line. She specified that the
[proposed] CS extends the declaration not the disaster. She
noted that Alaska has not been in lockdown in months, businesses
have been open, people have been free to go where they like, and
kids have gone back to school - all when a declaration was in
place. Extending the declaration doesn't change any of this,
she said, rather it gives Alaska the ability to ensure continued
testing and vaccinating so the pandemic can finally be ended,
and the finish line crossed as Alaska is almost there. It
ensures healthcare providers can continue providing needed
services without unnecessary risk or prohibitive cost, she
added. Providers have stated that they are operating in a grey
zone and are not protected with the absence of a declaration.
Also, it ensures healthcare providers don't have to hack through
bureaucratic hurdles to set up care sites.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER stressed that the declaration ensures Alaska can
respond quickly if the decreasing numbers suddenly take an
uptick, which was seen in the past few months. Variants are out
there, and it would be best if Alaska can be ready, she said.
It ensures Alaskans have access to tele-health, access to food
through expanded SNAP eligibility, and removes any doubt about
Alaska's eligibility for federal relief funds, she continued.
It ensures that Alaska can safely promote that it is open for
business and can welcome healthy tourists who can help jumpstart
Alaska's economy this summer.
5:31:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that Version B is much smaller
than the original bill introduced by the governor in January and
much smaller than the bill that was passed in March [2020]. She
said the proposed CS is a measured compromise that doesn't
contain many of the elements that were included in [Senate Bill]
241 and doesn't include many of the things asked for by the
governor, including many of the open-ended receipt authorities
that gave the governor a completely undefined authority to spend
money. Also, she specified, it doesn't force mask mandates,
vaccinations, or business closures.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that Version B gives the
administration some flexibility to license healthcare workers,
provide some regulatory stability for healthcare providers and
hospitals, and to deploy resources as needed for testing and
vaccination clinics; for example, in Anchorage an outdoor
vaccination clinic has been contracted. Providence Hospital is
considering pulling back on the Alaska Airlines COVID-19
vaccination and testing facility, she continued. This looks
like a bit of risk, she opined, as it seems the hospital should
be allowed to do that if it is needed. She said the proposed CS
allows Alaska to receive federal resources that other states are
going to get if Alaska doesn't receive them, and she wants
hungry Alaskans to be able to receive those SNAP benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said Version B allows for required
testing at Alaska airports which, she argued, keeps Alaska open
for business. Tourism is a huge industry in Alaska, she
continued, with Southeast Alaska the most economically impacted
region by COVID-19 because it is so reliant on the fishing
industry and tourism. Not being able to test people as they
come into the state means Alaska is not going to be able to be
as aggressive with its tourism plan. She pointed out that 20
percent of Alaska's workers don't live in Alaska and said
ensuring these workers get tested will identify variants and
positive cases as they come into the state. For example, she
related, Director Hedberg [Division of Public Health] has said
3,000 cases were found that way. It is important that small
towns be able to protect themselves while still ensuring that
Alaska can be open for business, she opined. There is a lot of
flexibility and freedom and the reins have been taken back on
unencumbered power, she said, so the proposed CS is a measured
and important compromise.
5:35:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA concurred with Representative McCarty's
comments that COVID-19 is real and that when this came out in
March [2020] there was much fear and lack of information.
However, he said, the mortality rate is now low, there is
information, and there are more treatment options. [Previously]
the concern was to flatten the curve so that the healthcare
system wouldn't be overwhelmed and people needing treatment to
survive could get that treatment. But, he stated, Alaska
doesn't have that problem and passing this bill would be a
mistake. The incalculable damage that the declaration has
caused might not be known for a long time, he opined. He agreed
that Version B is scaled back from what was passed originally
and what was asked for originally but said he understands the
governor has withdrawn his support from this bill and is doing a
scaled back request for authorizations outside of a disaster
declaration. He stated he therefore doesn't see a need for the
bill and because he doesn't believe Alaska is in a true state of
emergency, he will vote no.
5:36:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX agreed that Version B is structured more to
enable state agencies to respond and there is no intent from the
governor's office to impose restrictions. He said it was too
bad about having to start the [previous] mandates but that he
had concurred with them despite knowing there would be this
reaction. Care needs to be taken so another outbreak doesn't
get going, he continued. Whether or not it's an emergency, it
will affect the desire of people to live here, and said he hopes
his neighbors take it upon themselves to follow the guidelines
and cover their noses when sneezing and wear masks when around
others. He offered his understanding that when people are
forced to do something it causes an overreaction both ways.
This has become an emotional issue, and the facts don't seem to
matter for either way, he opined. While he is of two opinions
on this, he said the bill should at least be passed out of
committee, and he will do some research on the statistics and
think further. He stated he would like to be able to complete
the response without the emergency but is unsure whether that
can be done.
5:39:18 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY noted that promising numbers are being seen,
treatments are being better utilized in the hospitals for people
with severe COVID-19 infections, and there are now vaccinations.
But, she continued, an analogy previously provided to the
committee was that "we should not be ending a seven-day
penicillin prescription three days into that prescription
because we are starting to feel better." She said she continues
to believe in the importance of remaining nimble. Healthcare is
a highly regulated industry and Alaska is geographically
positioned in a way that gives the state advantage to keeping
variants at a minimum if they can be identified quickly. She
said she believes that providing the tools needed for
communities, hospital systems, and the state to continue to
respond to a global pandemic is necessary. She related she
agrees with the exhaustion that families are feeling but also
identifies with the sorrow of families that had to say good-by
to a loved one. She pointed out that it is a viral infection,
so unlike a bacterial infection there is no treatment. She
stated that for those reasons she will support the proposed CS
in the context of ensuring the tools that communities and
organizations need to continue responding to the pandemic.
5:41:40 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER moved to report CSHB 76, Version 32-GH1011\B,
Dunmire, 3/3/21, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
5:41:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA objected.
5:42:05 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax, Spohnholz,
Fields, Zulkosky, and Snyder voted in favor of the motion to
report CSHB 76, Version 32-GH1011\B, Dunmire, 3/3/21, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. Representatives Kurka and McCarty voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 76(HSS) was reported from the House Health
and Social Services Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
5:43:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX related that according to the Fairbanks
North Star Borough website the borough had been bouncing along
in the low-intermediate risk area for nearly a month, but over
the last week cases have gone up and risk level is now
intermediate. He said this drives home the point that people
shouldn't be complying because government told them to but
rather thinking about their neighbors and doing what can be done
to control this disease.
5:44:26 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:44 p.m.